« FAZ: Terrorists are Human / FAZ: Terroristen sind menschlich | Main | Paul at NBS Reports on the Bush-Meter’s Drastic Jump »

Comments

Is he gravely concerned?

Not yet. No need to rush into things and expend all your ammunition at once.

So Schröder is concerned and doesnt offer any ideas. How about a UNesque statement threatening "consequences".

Once Schröder is gravely concerned, he could offer "serious consequences", and we know that doesnt really mean anything.

Europa hat den Konflikt mit den Iran nur noch weiter verschärft. Ein weiteres deutliches Anzeichen dafür, wie machtpolitisch impotent man doch ist.

Europe's Iran Fantasy
From the September 6, 2004 issue: Europeans are from Venus, Mullahs are from Mars.
by Leon de Winter
09/06/2004, Volume 009, Issue 48

Amsterdam
ON OCTOBER 22, 2003, the Guardian, a leading British newspaper, carried no fewer than three articles about the remarkable events in Tehran the day before. The foreign ministers of the three leading European Union countries--Britain's Jack Straw, France's Dominique de Villepin, and Germany's Joschka Fischer--had flown to Iran to try to persuade its Shiite leaders to conclude an agreement about Iran's nuclear program.

The first was a news story, under the headline, "E.U. ministers strike Iran deal." The lead began, "Three European foreign ministers claimed a diplomatic coup yesterday, securing an agreement from Iran over its nuclear program which could defuse a brewing crisis with the U.S." Central to the agreement was a commitment "to suspend [Iran's] uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities"--in other words, to halt production of materials for nuclear weapons.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/522tpvlc.asp?pg=1

Tomorrow there will be buzz about a new book from William Gertz of the Washington Times. It will depict the fact that our so called allies were selling Saddam military hardware right up to the last minute of the war.

Germany's involvement may not be the worst compared to France, China and Russia....but it is significant just the same. (Note the reaction to German chemical industry execs to the detainment of the 7 of hearts, below.)

I suspect that his book may prove to be the first blow towards the break up of Nato.

Gerhard Schroeder is "concerned" that the Iranians are not buying enough German products.
Everybody know that German gas centrifuges are much better than the Russian and French ones.

He needs to look for the "root" causes!

Gerhard Schroeder is "concerned" that the Iranians are not buying enough German products.
Everybody know that German gas centrifuges are much better than the Russian and French ones.

He needs to look for the "root" causes!

Downer,
thank you again for providing us with this article from Leon de Winter. He reminds us of this:

"On December 14, 2001, the de facto dictator of Iran, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, spelled out his dream in a sermon at Tehran University. "If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the [nuclear] weapons currently in Israel's possession," Rafsanjani said, "on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end." This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb on Israel would entirely demolish the Jewish state, whereas it would only damage the Islamic world. Iran's leaders have made dozens of similar statements."

Please read the whole article here:

here

Great posting, David, great comments!

Germany still has a great responsibility for Israel. It is not so long ago. They don't need our money, they need our hearts and support. Why is there so less understanding that Israel is fighting against terror, against people who want to kill them because they are Jewish, not because of occupation. We Germans should know that there was NO REASON to kill Jews under Hitler. Germany killed them. Why? - I never understood this evil. And it frigthens me much when I think that this evil happened here. The Jews never understood why and they never expected such an evil. So they stayed here in Germany and thought IT will pass by. But it did not. It did not pass by because the German people killed them without any reason, just because they hated them. And why did they hate them? I have no answer. And I have no answer when I see the next Palestinian suicide bomber killing Israeli children and others.

We Germans should know that people kill others just without any reason. WE DID IT. And it is not long ago. We are the next generation and we have the responsibility. We did not do it but we should get up against this new wave of hatred. We know the goal of hatred.

There are people in this world who want to kill Jews in the name of their God. They want to destroy Israel. They say it again and again. We have to listen to this and stop them. That is our German responsibility. When we help and stop them, Sharon has nothing to do.

The violent Palestinians get European mental support to use terror. Will Germany be guilty again for killing Jews by not helping them?

We should understand the hatred against Jews. We did the same. When we think about how it happened, we will understand that Osama Bin Laden and his followers and all other terrorists who want to kill Jews and Americans just do it because of hate. And hate has never a reason. Hate needs no reason. Hate is the dark side in some people.

What did the Jews do that Hitler-Germany decided to kill them? Any answer? The terrorists feel like Hitler and they act like him. Israel and the USA are not the Goliaths who fight back. They are the victims and need our help.

Germany is responsible for Israel. What happened to this responsibility?


Don: Is he gravely concerned?
Eric: Not yet. No need to rush into things and expend all your ammunition at once.

You guys are killin' me-- how can I be laughing at this?

Great post by Gabi! Very powerful; a mystery how any could not be affected by such unassailable logic.


@downer,

Thanks for uncovering this excellent article : http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/522tpvlc.asp?pg=1

I would definately encourage all readers to also have a read. Some quotes taken from the articel :

Most Europeans no longer regard Auschwitz as the disastrous result of evil ideas and the evil decisions of human beings. Instead, they see it as the consequence of something more like a natural disaster.

Another manifestation of the same kind of thinking is the antihistorical view of the suffering caused by the Allied bombing of Nazi Germany: Germans increasingly see themselves as victims of "the war," as if the conflict were not a consequence of the German people's national obsessions with race and purity. A recent German novel about the Allied bombing enjoyed a succès de scandale because it purposely left out any reference to historical context. Everyone is a victim in war, was the message, and the difference between good and evil disappears when the dogs of war are unleashed. "Ordinary Germans" were victims too.

Today's Europeans seem unable to accept the idea that bowing to tyranny is sometimes worse than going to war to resist it. Indeed, to judge from the way European appeasers have handled the threat of a potential Iranian nuclear bomb, it seems that Europe would rather accept its own demise than sacrifice its sons to the dogs of war, which make no distinction between good and evil.

Over the past few days, there have been some excellent postings on this website. The above article works nicely with another poster who quoted the philosopher, John Stuart Mill :

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Can Europeans not understand that what you have today was fought for? Additionally European security was also underwritten by the USA during that most threatening of times: the Cold War. Would Europe ever do this for American? Bosnia demonstrated the impotence of and pretentious nature of "soft power" and "rapid reaction force." Again, that demon across the sea, whose gravestones extend all over Europe, the US had to come to yours and their rescue.

Why has Germany fought for everything else in history, but not for their enjoyed freedoms: it's antithetical.

What causes this animus in European liberals? I have thought about this myself and offered the only idea : many European liberals consider the US a familiar culture and therefor subject to [their perceived] line-of-reasoning. Whereas, Arab and middle eastern countries are abstract, culturally different and therefore not subject to their line-of-reasoning or even perception for that matter. And therefore, it is more easy to convey criticism a culture you have a connection with, being the USA.

PS: I wonder if events in Belsan will encourage Putin to reconsider Russia’s essential contribution in building Iran’s nuclear reactor.


@Gabi

I really liked your posting, it is one of the most mature and reflective postings I have ever heard from a German.

The only reason I can think that motivates Germans to follow the "appeasement" avenue is that they will do everything that avoids war. This was the theme in the article that downer had posted and the John Stuat Mill quote another reader had posted a few days ago.

Quite frankly, I am getting more scared living here in Germany. I just moved into my new apartment in Munich and introduced myself to my retired Prussian neighbour, we shared a beer on my balcony. Although I've lived here for 9 years now, I am still not familiar with what Germans consider social manners: it wasn't another 5 minutes before he began to lecture me on the how the Americans were destroying the world. This language I am already familiar with among German colleagues and media. But he really scared me when he told me that he couldn't understand how Americans could be so patriotic whilst having been hijacked by Jews.

German language like this was most prevalent in 1939.


@george M

Do you have any more information about William Gertz's new book. I looked on Amazon, even though it hasn't been released, sometimes Amazon will have it in their database.

I would be interested in reading it.

Thx
J

Die Zeit (Josef Joffe) gets it right:

Die Verständnis-Falle: Die westliche Welt täuscht sich: Der Terrorismus ist nicht die Waffe der Schwachen

http://www.zeit.de/2004/38/01___Leit_1_38

A good article, even though he says Al Qaeda wants Bush reelected. Well, we already know they are suicidal!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400053153/thegertzfile/104-2979326-3273552

This is the link to purchase Willam Gertz's new book. Below are some comments.

"Treachery with its reams of classified and other insider information, reveals how our nation's enemies obtain weapons from China, Russia, France, Germany and other supposed friends. The book is must-reading if you want to know the confidential story of the growing danger of global arms proliferation."
-- Rowan Scarborough, Pentagon reporter, Washington Times, and bestselling author of Rumsfeld's War.

Bill Gertz gets it! Treachery brilliantly exposes our allies who have become our enemies in the War on Terror just because the U.N., France, Germany, and Russia looked at Iraq and other rogue states as trading partners rather than enablers of terrorism. This is a major piece of work in the War on Terror."
-- Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.), bestselling author of Endgame.

"Two big factors will determine America's national security over the next twenty years. The first is the capability of our military weapons as determined by the health of our defense industrial base. And, second, the extent to which our adversaries are able to buy or steal advanced military technology from the U.S. and our allies. Bill Gertz focuses superbly on the hemorrhaging of critical military technology to our enemies. Treachery should be read by all our policymakers."
-- Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee


I read Joffe's article too, but in the same newspaper I also found Johannes Voswinkel with his terrible article: "Herd der Gewalt" from last week and today "Wo der Mensch kein Mensch ist". I wonder what Joffe thinks about Voswinkel when he writes that the terror in Russia is caused by Putin's wrong politics.


Well we all know already what the course of action is going to be. Gerhart will meet with the french and now the spanish. They will in turn call a meeting of the EU ministers who will issue a strong worded position paper "asking" Iran to abide by the UN ruling. Then together the franco-German axis will run off to the UNSC and pass some meaningless resolution condemning the spread of WMS’s

Gerhart will then declare this a moral victory for the new "German Way".

Then Berlin and Paris can continue to sell technology to those who wish to destroy freedom.

Makes one wonder about the elites of these two nations. Of course, if one cannot identify evil, then there is no compiling reason ever to have to act. In fact, since one lacks not only the courage and will and means to act, there is no other choice than not to see evil.

I have for one lost all hope in the German people.

Asking Permission.

Do the elites in the franco-German axis think Russia will also ask them for permission to fight terror.

For some reason, I do not think so. Of course, I have been wrong before.

I can see the media as well as some of the political elites in Greater Germany are gearing up to attack Putin.

This is moral courage at its best. One can only admire this stance, as it reflects not only the will of the citizens of these two great allies but also the need to find and fight the "ROOT CAUSES" of terror.

Kopfgeld auf Putin augesetzt

Tschetschenische Rebellen versprechen 20 Millionen Dollar

Tschetschenische Rebellen haben am
Donnerstag ein Kopfgeld von 20 Millionen Dollar auf die Ergreifung des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin ausgesetzt.

"Wir bieten Ländern, Organisationen oder Einzelpersonen, die der Republik Tschetschenien aktiv dabei helfen, den Kriegsverbrecher Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin zu ergreifen, eine Belohnung von 20 Millionen Dollar", hieß es in einer auf einer Internetseite der Rebellen veröffentlichten Mitteilung. Unterzeichnet war diese vom "Zentrum für Terrorismus-Bekämpfung der Republik Tschetschenien", das zur von Russland nicht anerkannten Regierung Maschadows gehört.

Die Rebellen warfen Putin darin vor, einen Krieg gegen Tschetschenien zu führen. Sie machen ihn auch für die Geiselnahme in einer Schule in Beslan verantwortlich, bei der vergangene Woche rund 330 Menschen starben.

(aus FR von heute)
-------------------------------------

Klingt das nicht vertraut?


Kampf gegen den Terrorismus nur solidarisch möglich

Schröder warnte im außenpolitischen Teil seiner Rede davor, den Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus regional unterschiedlich zu bewerten. Der Terror könne nur solidarisch bekämpft werden, erklärte der Kanzler, der diesen Kampf als wichtigste Herausforderung der deutschen Außenpolitik an den Anfang seiner Rede gestellt hatte.

Mit Blick auf das Geiseldrama im südrussischen Beslan erklärte Schröder, er sei sich mit Wladimir Putin und Jacques Chirac bei ihrem Treffen in Sotschi am 31. August einig gewesen, dass es für den Tschetschenien-Konflikt nur eine politische Lösung geben könne. Doch Terroristen, die auf wehrlose Männer, Frauen und Kinder schössen, seien keine möglichen Gesprächspartner.

Deutschland könne kein Interesse daran haben, dass die territoriale Integrität Russlands in Frage gestellt werde. Eine solche Politik bringe Europa und der Welt keine zusätzliche Sicherheit, sagte Schröder. Den Gefahren, die vom Terrorismus und von regionalen Konflikten ausgingen, könne nur durch eine verantwortungsvolle Politik des Multilateralismus begegnet werden. Dafür stehe die Außenpolitik dieser Bundesregierung, so der Kanzler.

Selbstbewusster Beitrag zur Lösung internationaler Konflikte

Deutschland, sagte der Kanzler, leiste seinen Beitrag im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus und helfe bei der Lösung regionaler Konflikte mit. Die Bundesregierung bestimme selbstbewusst und in eigener Verantwortung, was sie international zu leisten bereit sei.

Dies gelte auch für den Irak, dem Deutschland bei der Ausbildung eigener Sicherheitskräfte für Polizei und Militär helfe. Doch wer seine internationalen Pflichten so erfülle wie Deutschland, der habe auch das Recht nein zu sagen, wenn er einen internationalen Einsatz für nicht sinnvoll halte, sagte der Kanzler.
---------------------------------

Das ist von der homepage der Bundesregierung. Ein Transcript habe ich nicht gefunden. sicher später.

Die Rhetorik macht mich krank: Selbstbewußt - mit dem Recht nein zu sagen. Was soll das in der Außenpolitik. Niemand hat zuvor Deuetschland Selbstbewußtsein abgesprochen. Aber vor lauter Selbstbewußtsein hat diese Bundesregierung den Kampf gegen den Terror verschlafen. Laut gröhlend schallt es über den Ozean, wir sind wieder wer und stehen nicht Gewehr bei Fuß.

Wieso hat der Irak so hohe Schulden gegenüber Deutschland? Bin zu faul zum Suchen. Wer hat da mit wem Geschäfte gemacht. Wo kann ich das nachlesen? Ist die rechtliche Seite eigentlich geklärt? Ist dieser neue Irak Rechtsnachfolger und verantwortlich für die Schulden?


Is Schroueder concerned ENOUGH to do something about it, or perhaps ask SOME OTHER NATION to do something about it, or at least stop trying to frsutrate the efforts of a nation that wants to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...

His gig is little more than PR spin. Schroeder can't and won't do a thing about a nuclear threat to Germany. He can't protect his population with his marvelous forbearance, and he knows it.

"Die „Iswestija“ hatte unverblümt über das Blutbad in Beslan berichtet. Der Chefredakteur musste gehen, das nennen andere Blätter jetzt offen Zensur."

Das schreibt Christoph von Marschall in seinem heutigen Beitrag "Ruf nach Glasnost" im Tagesspiegel.

Hatte die Zeitung tatsächlich nur "unverblümt" berichtet oder hat dieser Jpurnalist nicht einfach unterstellt, daß die russischen Soldaten den Kindern ins Gesicht geschossen hätten? Niemand weiß, ob die Kinder auch von vorne getroffen worden sind, als sie den Terroristen entfliehen wollten und diese ihnen in den Rücken schossen. Sie rannten in Richtung Soldaten. Kann sich jemand dieses Dilemma vorstellen? Kann sich jemand dieses Grauen vorstellen? Und dann kommt da ein Journalist und behauptet, man hätte den Kindern ins Gesicht geschossen. Unverblümt, Herr von Marshall, nein, dumm und unverantwortlich, so wie Ihre Bemerkung, die Sie hier so ganz nebenbei machen. Schade, daß Sie nicht mehr können und meinen, wir verdienen nichts Besseres.

@James
I too appreciated Léon de Winter's article, but I had some difficulty with the quote below:

“Another manifestation of the same kind of thinking is the antihistorical view of the suffering caused by the Allied bombing of Nazi Germany: Germans increasingly see themselves as victims of "the war," as if the conflict were not a consequence of the German people's national obsessions with race and purity. A recent German novel about the Allied bombing enjoyed a succès de scandale because it purposely left out any reference to historical context. Everyone is a victim in war, was the message, and the difference between good and evil disappears when the dogs of war are unleashed. "Ordinary Germans" were victims too.”
End quote.

If Germans see themselves primarily as victims of “the war”, this is indeed in a way an “antihistorical” view. The view that the German people’s national obsessions with race and purity were among the causes of the conflict is at least in part historically correct. This being so, the suffering caused by the Allied bombing of Germany is undeniably part of the historical reality of WWII. And ordinary Germans (without inverted commas), among them quite a few who never were in favour of Nazism or even opposed it, were victims too. To see these facts being facts can never be labelled antihistorical and no reference to historical context, including all the Nazi-crimes, can ever cancel these facts from history. Furthermore, it is possible, though perhaps not always appropriate, to discuss about the strategic effectiveness of the Allied bombings and the inevitability of the amount of suffering caused by the bombings. It’s quite another thing to proceed from this to the message that “everyone is a victim in war and the difference between good and evil disappears when the dogs of war are unleashed.” This is of course objectionable moral relativism.
It is not impossible that some German appeaseniks, recently opposing the bombing in Afghanistan, are sincerely believing that the technologically much more sophisticated bombing ‘modern style’, developed with the explicit purpose of minimizing collateral damage and suffering for innocent civilians, is essentially similar to the Allied moral bombing of Germany in 1945. That would decidedly be a antihistorical view.

"Putins Abwehrformel, er verhandele ebenso wenig mit Kindermördern wie der Westen mit Osama bin Laden, folgt einer Scheinlogik. Niemand erwartet von Putin, mit radikalen Terroristen zu reden. Sondern mit moderaten Tschetschenen über Autonomie zu verhandeln. Militärisch wird er das Problem nicht lösen. Die Extremisten bekämpfen, die Gemäßigten politisch einbeziehen: Das war das Erfolgsrezept gegen die Eta in Spanien und die IRA in Nordirland, Israel hielt es so mit Arafat und die USA heute im Irak mit al Sadr. Russland braucht Unterstützung und womöglich muslimische Vermittlung, damit ein autonomes Tschetschenien nicht zum Exporteur von Terror in den ganzen Kaukasus wird, aber es muss solche Hilfe auch annehmen."

Das schreibt Christoph von Marshall im heutigen Tagesspiegel. Auch er verbindet Terror und Politik und gibt den Terroristen einen politischen Grund. Auch er glaubt, die Terroristen hätten den Kindern in den Rücken geschossen, um ein unabhängiges Tschetschenien zu erreichen. Auch er glaubt, Menschen, die anderen in den Kopf schießen, weil sie um Gnade für die Kleinsten in der Schule gebeten hatten, seien dort, um einen politische Aussage zu machen. Terroristen nehmen sich einen Grund, um Leute wie Herrn von Marshall manipulieren zu können. Fragt er sich nicht, warum es nicht alles Tschetschenen waren, die dort Kinder bedroht und getötet haben?

Putin hat leider sehr spät erkannt, daß die Terrorbekämpfung nur gemeinsam geht. Schade, daß er sich Schröder und Chirac und nicht Bush und Blair angeschlossen hat. Ohne Zerstörung von Terrorcamps geht es nicht.

Das Entsetzliche ist nicht das Zerstören von Terrorcamps, sondern daß es Menschen gibt, die diese Terrorcamps aufbauen und benutzen!

Jedes Gesetz dieser Welt gibt uns Menschen das RECHT, diese Ansammlungen von Killern in Trainingslagern zu zerstören. Wenn wir nicht das Recht dazu haben, dann müssen unsere Gesetze UNRECHT sein. Gesetze sind nämlich nur Menschenwerk. Sie sind zu ändern, wenn sie uns nicht mehr schützen.

Wenn es nicht möglich ist, Terrorbasen zu zerstören, so wie es Israel gestern gemacht hat, dann hat unsere westliche Welt versagt.

Wenn ich den Rechtsstaat loben will, muß er auch effektiv sein. Der Rechtsstaat bricht nicht zusammen, wenn die internationale Gemeinschaft zusammen Terrorbanden und ihre Hütten und Höhlen und Löcher zerstören würde.

Bei dem Wort Präemptivschlag schreien sie wieder alle auf in den deutschen Medien. Erst Bush und jetzt Putin. Daß Solana für die EU Gleiches in seinem Papier verkündet hatte, wird dabei vergessen. Ich bin mir jetzt nicht sicher, ob es abgeändert worden ist.

Unsere Journalisten müssen geschult werden, daß sie nicht länger den Terroristen helfen, indem sie diesen einen politischen Grund geben. Sie helfen damit dem Terror. Es muß jetzt diskutiert werden, daß diese blödsinnige Haltung den Terror verstärkt. Menschen sterben dadurch. Gestern wieder, in Rußland waren es Hunderte von Kindern. Wir müssen unsere Medien auf ihre Fehler hinweisen, die 1000fach vergrößert in die Welt posaunt werden. Terroristen lesen mit. Sie sehen sich bestätigt. Putin wird kritisiert. Wenn er nur milder wäre, gäbe es keinen Terror. Wäre das schön, wenn es so leicht und einfach wäre.

Was hätte denn gegen Naziterror geholfen? Blumen und Verständnis, daß diese keine Juden leiden können? Ernsthaft: Was hätte gegen Naziterror geholfen? War der Krieg vermeidbar? Wäre Hitler ohne Krieg zur Besinnung gekommen? Erst wenn der letzte Jude gestorben wäre, hätte Hitler aufgehört.

Es gibt doch unzählige Bücher darüber, daß nur Gegenwalt geholfen hat, Nazideutschland zu stoppen. Nur die Sprache der Bomben konnte die Mörder von Millionen von Menschen stoppen. Nur noch größere Gewalt konnte sie besiegen. Alles schon vergessen?

Warum haben so viele Angst vor Gewalt? Weil wir uns schon einmal schuldig gemacht haben? Jetzt machen wir uns wieder schuldig, denn dieses Mal unterstützen wir verbal wieder die Gewalt der Bösen. Ja, es gibt Böse. Ich habe das Böse in Beslan gesehen.


@Gabi

Keep fighting and thinking and analyzing and telling the truth!!

I've lived here in Germany for over 20 years and I am going to move home very soon. I have had it!!

I have a theory. For the last twenty years I have been told Americans are naive. The implication is that German's are not. For thirty years now I have been told I am not qualified to discuss war - because bombs have not droped on my house or on that of a relative. You know what I have this sinking suspicion that those who claim we are naive do so because they do not believe that only "Germany or Germans" could have been duped during WWII. Why do I say this - well I have had so many Germans explain to me that the US went to war for profit only. Well we may think we went to war to fight for freedom and free the world of nazi fascism but no we are wrong - we went to war so Ford and Rockefeller could make tons of money. See I have come to the conclusion that those who accuse me of naivety just will not or can not believe that we did what we did because the war was just. We Americans in their eyes were mere pawns in the Capitalists hands. They just can not accept that maybe "Germans and Germany" were duped.

Just a thought.

aus KSTA:

Washington/Allensbach - Eine Umfrage in 35 Staaten über die USA und Präsident George W. Bush hat ein verheerendes Ergebnis für die amtierende Regierung in Washington gebracht.

Vor allem in Deutschland wird nach der am Mittwoch in Washington veröffentlichten Studie des kanadischen Meinungsforschungsinstituts «Globescan» und der US-Forschungsgruppe PIPA die US-Politik entschieden abgelehnt. Auch nach einer Umfrage des deutschen Instituts für Demoskopie in Allensbach wünscht sich zwei Monate vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen die große Mehrheit der Deutschen einen Wechsel im Weißen Haus.

Bei der Wahl zwischen Bush und dem demokratischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten John Kerry würden die Menschen in 30 Ländern einen Sieg des Demokraten begrüßen. Von den insgesamt 34 330 Befragten würden 46 Prozent für Kerry, 20 Prozent für Bush stimmen, die übrigen äußerten sich nicht oder sind unentschieden, heißt es in der repräsentativen Untersuchung. Nur in Polen, Nigeria und den Philippinen erhielt Bush mehr Unterstützung als Kerry.

...

Das Ansehen der USA hat der amerikanischen Umfrage zufolge unter Bush erheblich gelitten. Fast überall sagte eine große Mehrheit der Befragten, dass sich seit dem Amtsantritt von Bush ihre Meinung über die USA verschlechtert habe. Mit 83 Prozent Zustimmung führt dabei Deutschland die Liste jener an, deren Sicht sich auf die USA negativ entwickelt hat. Aber auch in anderen Ländern wie Frankreich (81 Prozent), Mexiko (78) China (72), den Niederlanden (71), in Italien (66) oder Brasilien (66) ist die Einschätzung ähnlich. (dpa)


@Kees Rudolf

"among them quite a few who never were in favour of Nazism or even opposed it"

Hmm, how many attempts were made to replace Hitler? Few, really. Von Stauffenberg is falsely being placed onto a pedistal of Nazi-opposition, casually forgetting that he was an early supporter of Nazism and member. He is, at best, a figure in a greek tragedy of someone who got what he wished for and is then consumed by the monster he helped to create. No, better still, Stauffenberg is more like Rabi Loew in the Czech Jewish folklore of Golem. I do not accept the view, everso slightly, that the Germans were the victims ( ok, maybe communist Germans ). Hilter has overwhelming support, he got them really whipped up into an accult-like frenzy. This is role-reversal, the aggressor becomes the victim and the vitim becomes the aggressor.

I could only accept the view of Götterdämmerung taken by the Nazis towards the end of WWII.

It is one thing to say that even bombing of Dresden was inappropriate whilst Minsk, Warsaw were also part-of or member to the general dogs of war per se. No. The Germans/Austrians : supported Hitler, entertained an arrogant sufficating superior self view, followed him, committed the crimes, and payed for it in a mannar which they dealt it out.

Pech falls denen eigenen Asche nicht schmecken.


@Trish


Tell these cynical German nihilists that :

We went to war against Germany because they declared it against us.
We went to war against Japan because they declared it against us.
We went to [cold] war against Communism because we wanted to preserve our threatened civilisation.
We are at war with al Queda because they declared it against us.

Germany was duped, and continues to be so. We Americans are far more wealthy than they and this only leads to further jealousy and contempt. Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Franklin are our noble heroes, what is Germany’s?

Wie oft wird hier eigentlich noch das Nazi-Regime angesprochen ? Ihr beklagt euch, daß eine unbestimmte Anzahl von Deutschen was Böses sagen. Andererseits seid ihr aber keinen Deut besser. Laßt euch mal was neues einfallen, anstatt jedesmal das Dritte Reich breit zu klopfen und vor allem dann noch Verbindungen mit dem heutigen Deutschland aufzubauen. Das zieht nämlich mit der Zeit immer weniger. Ich denke, es hat sich in den fast 60 Jahren einiges geändert. Aber wir haben ja nichts aus unserer Geschichte gelernt....

@Gabi:

Was für einen Sinn haben denn "geschulte" Journalisten ?

@anonymous

"Aber wir haben ja nichts aus unserer Geschichte gelernt...."

This is the funny way that Fritz/Jo/etc works, you can't quote history can you!

PDS along with the NPD has increased seats in the recent Saarland election. Apparntly you haven't!


Laßt euch mal was neues einfallen, anstatt jedesmal das Dritte Reich breit zu klopfen und vor allem dann noch Verbindungen mit dem heutigen Deutschland aufzubauen.

So what you are suggesting we should talk about islamic facism without discussing it's forerunner nazi facism. Has the shelf life of nazi facism run out and no one told us. Gee how convenient - I don't like your argumentation well because this part of history is in the past i.e. historical?? This is definitely an AFLAC moment.

As a student of International Relations, I would bring up this quote from the League of Nations-

"Peace comes before all; peace comes even before justice." -Briand
League of Nations: Ninth Assembly, p.83

I think this is typical of the recurring trend in European politics, and is the basis of their current beliefs.

@Kell

I agree that this seems to be a reoccuring trend, but the League of Nations was a complete failure. Or did I miss something

Das mit dem Nazi-Regime wird hier manchmal gern vorhergeschoben, um zu sagen: Wir haben euch damals befreit von dem Terror, also seid uns dankbar. Manches Mal hab ich den Eindruck, das diese Tatsache nur zu gern missbraucht wird. Darüber (die undankbaren Deutschen) kann man sich dann prima auslassen. Und das hat dann auch nicht immer mit einer Verbindung zwischen dem damaligen und heutigen Faschismus zu tun.
Auf die Sache mit der PDS/NPD hab ich schon gewartet. Bleibt abzuwarten, wie das in den anderen Ländern aussehen wird. Herr Schily sollte mal Mut fassen und die NPD verbieten anstatt weiterhin Bürgerrechte zu beschneiden im Namen des Terrors.

It is intereting how the Germans seem to think.

In WWII they had an attitude of being superior. That did not turn out too well for them.

Now they have what only one could consider a superior moralistic attitude. For some reason, I do not think this is going to turn out too well for them either.

I could be wrong.

Ignore the Niko troll posting

James: Hmm, how many attempts were made to replace Hitler? Few, really.

Probably true; also, that he had enourmous popular support.

But also, if I were to imagine myself living in Germany at that time, I can very easily imagine that I would have been rightfully terrified of speaking out against him, let alone trying to organize some kind of resistance.

And if I had had *family*...

Point being, yes, a people are ultimately responsible for their government, but I cannot fault every person. In hindsight, what might a simple shopkeeper have done?

Was allerdings auch langsam, aber sicher ins Reich der Fabel gehört, ist Europas Multilateralismus. Ich sehe keinen, der Richard sieht auch keinen:

Nichthandelszone Europa
Richard Herzinger

Europäische Staatschefs wettern gegen die Solo-Vorstellungen der USA. Sind aber gemeinsame Auftritte gefragt, ist’s auch nicht recht.

Zum Stichpunkt Iran schreibt er:

Am schlimmsten aber ist das europäische Lavieren im derzeit gefährlichsten Konflikt – im Umgang mit den atomaren Aufrüstungsplänen Irans. Vorigen Oktober meldeten die Aussenminister Frankreichs, Deutschlands und Grossbritanniens stolz, das Regime in Teheran zur vollen Kooperation mit der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde (IAEA) bewegt zu haben. Als Glanzstück europäischer Diplomatie wurde das gefeiert und als Beweis, dass man machtlüsterne Regime auch mit Überzeugungskraft statt mit Drohungen zur Räson bringen könne. Ein Jahr danach zieht der Bericht des IAEA-Generaldirektors al-Baradei eine niederschmetternde Bilanz: Iran hat die Schonfrist genutzt, um an der Entwicklung einer Atombombe weiterzuarbeiten.

Umgekehrt zum Irak-Konflikt drängen diesmal die USA die Europäer, den Fall Iran gemeinsam vor den Uno-Sicherheitsrat zu bringen. Die EU aber ist uneinig, ob überhaupt ein iranischer Verstoss gegen den atomaren Nichtverbreitungsvertrag vorliege. Russland, China und Europa torpedieren ein einheitliches Vorgehen der Weltgemeinschaft. Zu viele europäische Regierungen scheuen davor zurück, ihre Sonderbeziehungen zu den Mullahs aufs Spiel zu setzen. So treibt der Konflikt in die Eskalation – nicht zuletzt, weil Israel bereitsteht, Irans Atomanlagen notfalls zu bombardieren.

Multilateralismus ist den Europäern heilig, solange er auf die USA handlungshemmend wirkt. Wenn aber multilaterale Kooperation sie selbst zu klaren Entscheidungen zwingt, sind sie jederzeit zum unilateralen Ausweichen vor der Verantwortung bereit.

http://www.weltwoche.ch/artikel/print.asp?AssetID=8639&CategoryID=66

Herzinger geht übrigens demnächst weg von der "Zeit", und hin zur "Weltwoche":

Richard Herzinger, langjähriger Autor der Zeit, wechselt als Deutschland-Korrespondent und politischer Essayist auf den 1. Oktober zur Weltwoche. Er hat sich nicht nur als scharfsinniger Kommentator des Tagesgeschehens einen Namen gemacht, sondern auch als Autor vielbeachteter Bücher («Endzeit-Propheten oder Die Offensive der Antiwestler», «Die Tyrannei des Gemeinsinns», «Republik ohne Mitte» u.a.).

http://www.weltwoche.ch/artikel/?AssetID=8638

Well, let's just hope that Schroeder does not make the campaign against an Iranian nuclear weapons programme a "Chefsache". If he does, this crisis is determined to end in a complete and utter catastrophe. Third world war, maybe...

Schroeder is your typical empty suit, opportunistic pol. A few platitudes, but never an earnest attempt to tackle any tough problems. I don’t believe for an instant that Schroeder feels that “Germany still has a great responsibility for Israel”; indeed none. In fact, I believe he’s probably relying on Israel to handle his “cause of concern". Make no mistake, like Osirak, the Israelis will defend themselves against this danger. I’m equally sure that Schroeder will be among the very first to publicly denounce this inevitable strike, while privately saying “danke sehr”.

Back on topic - the European Union suggests to postpone an IAEA decision on Iran "after the US presidential election"

Gerhard Schröder with his strange sense for unintended humor has best put the absurdity of the EU position towards Irans nuclear program into words:

"There are different opinions about whether nuclear weapons should be used for peaceful purposes."

And now he's running out of ideas? Poor Gerhard, better go buy yourself some duct tape!

duct tape

I love it...........

I was just trying to point out that Germany's Government, the EU, and the UN, all seem to share the same disastrous thinking as the League of Nations. By placing peace above everything, they allowed Hitler to go unchallenged.

Amihasser, komm mal hierhin, wird Dir gefallen...

amerikanski.de

I think I've got it. If Sudan pisses Schroeder off they'll lose Germany's vote in the UN for membership on the UN Human Rights Commission. Not that Germany would vote for the US instead. That would be going too far.....

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

March 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31